It would be nice to get this passed.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ap-paul-ryan-lets-national-reciprocity-stall/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ap-paul-ryan-lets-national-reciprocity-stall/
Everytown Takes Victory Lap as Paul Ryan Lets National Reciprocity Stall
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
AlexanderA
Member
The logjam was never going to be in the House anyway -- it's going to be in the Senate.
Until the All Weapons Ban states concede their unconstitutional stance it's moot. Nothing has been done to strike down their attitude and they do have a point in it being State's Rights.
When more is done in those states to reverse things then National Reciprocity will be an eventual result. Until then it's the pro gun people in those states not doing enough who are stalling things.
When more is done in those states to reverse things then National Reciprocity will be an eventual result. Until then it's the pro gun people in those states not doing enough who are stalling things.
IMO this is mostly read meat for the faithful and a way to gin up interest and campaign contributions.
It is almost certainly dead in the Senate as it has been every year in the past.
I am very ambivalent about creating what amounts to a federal CC law. It won't start out that way but will end up headed that direction over time.
It is almost certainly dead in the Senate as it has been every year in the past.
I am very ambivalent about creating what amounts to a federal CC law. It won't start out that way but will end up headed that direction over time.
wally
Member
But its much less of a case since somehow gay marriage was found to be a constitutional right to be forced on all the States. What part of "shall not be infringed" is causing them problems?
Well, the Supreme Court - the people who have the exclusive right to say what the Constitution and its Amendments actually mean - has, since Cruickshank in the 1870's and Presser in the 1930's consistently ruled that both the Federal government and the States can impose reasonable restrictions on the right. Even in the 2016 Caetano decision, the court recognized a category of arms which they called "bearable arms" distinct from "all arms". And the court has repeatedly permitted "infringements" such as not allowing minors to buy firearms and forbidding firearms in postal service buildings. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court doesn't read "shall not be infringed" in the same absolutist way as you read it.
P5 Guy
Member
Imagine there was no 17th amendment.
AlexanderA
Member
It wouldn't change the political calculus. The antigun Senators from antigun states would still be antigun, whether they were chosen by the antigun legislatures thereof, or directly by the people. Do you really think that the Connecticut legislature, for example, wouldn't send a Blumenthal or a Murphy to Washington?
Yes, then we would have a country operating the way the founding fathers intended it.
Members of Congress were elected by direct vote of the people and were supposed to represent their interests in Washington. Members of the Senate were elected by their state legislatures and were supposed to represent the interests of their states in Washington (the interest of the state also being - indirectly - the interest of the people of the state). This balanced the interest of the citizens along with the interests of their quasi-sovereign state governments against the interests of the fully-sovereign national government.
As a consequence of the 17th Amendment, every citizen now has three people directly representing them in Washington; a Member of Congress and two Senators. And that means they all have a powerful incentive to "buy" votes by promising the Federal Government will deliver more things to those citizens than their rivals.
MillennialGunslinger
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
- Messages
- 97
As much as I love the idea of National Reciprocity, I still have to admit I'm struggling with the principles. I really would prefer it if it was something the States would agree on (even though there is no way that would ever happen) rather than something imposed at the Federal level. In other words, I'd gladly support it, but I am aware that that implies a bit of hypocrisy at the end of the day... Oh well.
On a philosophical level I would prefer not to see National reciprocity just because it's a gross imposition of federal Authority against the states. However many citizens live in states that refuse to acknowledge the Second Amendment even exists it may take some kind of federal action to deal with it as it has already with Heller.
Actually, there is no Constitutional right to ‘gay marriage’; there is, however, a Constitutional right to equal protection of the law, where nothing is being ‘forced’ on the states.
Indeed, if states have the ‘right’ to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, then they likewise have the ‘right’ to place restrictions on the access to certain firearms.
Fortunately, the states are subject to the Constitution and its case law: just as states don’t have the right to deny marriage to gay Americans in violation of the 14th Amendment, so too do they not have the right deny gun owners access to particular firearms in violation of the Second Amendment, such as handguns.
But national reciprocity isn’t a “states’ rights” issue – the states would retain the right to compose their concealed carry laws as they see fit, establish the qualifications to carry a concealed firearm, and enforce those provisions accordingly.
Reciprocity would merely allow a nonresident to lawfully carry a concealed firearm during the duration of his visit to a given state.
And should someone move to a new state and become a resident of that state, he would be required to obtain a concealed carry license pursuant to the laws and qualification of his new state of residence.
kimberkid
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 1,654
This ...
I've been an NRA Endowment member for over a decade and although I've asked them to quit wasting dollars sending me solicitations (many times over) ... they persist
It seems to be worse now than when Obama was in office.
I've said this many times. The GOP hierarchy gives no priority to 2nd Amend. issues. They simple use them as bait and switch at election time. The NRA is focused on its commercial products, it seems at the present time. The latest magazines have written articles praising Trump to the highest but within nothing to show but rhetoric. His speech to the convention was useless. A message to Congress and the President that such unconditional love won't be available next time might be useful.
I know folks will say that then we will get the antigun folks but ... On the Democratic side, the loss of support by progressives and younger African-Americans has pushed their agenda towards their issues.
Perhaps a touch of Bernie Sanders insurrection - style might get them off their duffs.
I know folks will say that then we will get the antigun folks but ... On the Democratic side, the loss of support by progressives and younger African-Americans has pushed their agenda towards their issues.
Perhaps a touch of Bernie Sanders insurrection - style might get them off their duffs.
MillennialGunslinger
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
- Messages
- 97
This honestly makes a lot of sense and just may be the best argument I've heard.
That really sounds like an absolute mess in practice given how varied CCL laws are around the country. Just regarding issues about the firearms in themselves, like magazine capacity or approved models, would certainly create a lot of legal uncertainty. It certainly would be entertaining to watch some states pull their hair out about it though.
Maybe we could even have CCL tourism, where you go to another state to get a concealed weapon license just because it's less of a hassle than getting it in your own state
The best decision I ever made was to open a PO Box and make sure that was the only address the NRA has on me (as well as any other junk-mail prone company).
FROGO207
Member
I called the NRA main office only ONCE on the phone and asked to be removed from their mailing list for everything but the printed magazine. The junk mail stopped within two weeks. I do not understand those having problems.
lysanderxiii
Member
It's a two edged sword.
Some of your "red" senate seats come from blue legislature states for a very long time, especially in the south. Yet, very few "blue" states sent "red" senators to Washington.
And, it really doesn't change the incentive to "buy" votes, it just changes who gets to advertise.
Last edited:
armoredman
Member
It['s been 6 months and media blow up after media blow up, so I would hold on and keep calling/writing/emailing your elected Congresscritter, and give them the "no love in 2018" line yourself. As for President Trump doing nothing, he did get what so far appears to be a very conservative Supreme Court Justice confirmed, one very, very good thing so far. We have multiple bills introduced to do things we could only whisper and dream about years ago We will do what we can to get them passed into law with enough pressure right where Congress hates it the most - votes. There are no guarantees of anything except death, so I am willing to continue to do my part and hope/work for the best.
VinnAY
Member
IM pretty neutral on Reciprocity as I go to States right and whatever you want that to mean. But more so about decrying Federal gov size and overreach but then when it's something you want, big Fed is the name of the game, it doesn't make any sense. And while we try to separate a privilege like driving to a right like gun ownership, you'll link them together, again, when it's something that you want.
I just kind of chuckle.
I just kind of chuckle.
AlexanderA
Member
The problem with this line of thinking is that the Republicans have come to take gun owners' votes for granted. There is no credible threat that gun owners will vote Democratic. Therefore, the Republicans can continue to make pious noises on the gun issue, but actually deliver nothing.
I suggest that we study the biographies of the Congressmen and Senators. An inordinate number of them -- liberals and conservatives alike -- are lawyers and/or graduates of prestigious Ivy League universities. Regardless of ideology, they come from a certain self-perpetuating "political class." The priorities of this class are simply not those of the ordinary voters. Deep down, the political class looks down its noses at gun owners, who it considers to be "rednecks," "deplorables," and yahoos who "cling to their guns and religion." Gun owners are treated as pawns who can be milked for votes, and then safely forgotten. (And make no mistake -- the same exact thing happens on the antigun side as well.)
Our elected representatives don't want to make any changes on guns. This is just something to be conveniently trotted out at every election cycle. And of course the NRA and all the other organizations -- both pro- and antigun -- are very happy to go along with this, because a "live issue" is their bread and butter. Unresolved controversy underwrites their fundraising, which in turn enables the enormous salaries of their executives.
..........just one more Origionalist SCOTUS pick and the weasel wordin' might be over for quite some time.
CoalTrain49
Member
SSM was allowed by law in most states before the SC decided in favor of it. No such thing has happened to reciprocity. I can't carry in OR using my CPL from WA because OR doesn't honor anyone's permit. I'm in OR right now and my pistol is locked up. Same thing would happen if I were in CA.
Until more states loosen up their reciprocity laws we won't be getting any bill in congress or any help from the SC. There's a lot more work to be done at the state level. My RKBA is none of congresses business anyway. Their track record would indicate to me that anything coming from there won't be good.
I can't believe someone would think the federal gov't is going to help anyone with their RKBA. That's like thinking your pet rattlesnake won't bite you given the chance. They have a history of biting people.
Last edited:
CoalTrain49
Member
I'm still waiting for the GOP congress and the GOP president to actually do something for RKBA. In the meantime I'm not holding my breath. Health care and tax code are the real issues they need to deal with yet they still haven't left the gate. RKBA isn't even on their agenda.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
